Just to try to get to the crux with the “immigration issue” in America. The main issue is that 180 million people in the Western Hemisphere want to come to America according to Gallup. I bet if we officially had open borders then tens of millions of Africans would get on wooden boats and try to cross the ocean plus you would have traffikers taking them here for a fee.
So perhaps half a billion people would try to get here and America as we know it would be gone. So perhaps some people in Canada and Australia and the political left might call Americans who oppose open borders or constructive open borders as “fear mongers” or “racists” , but to me having a smart legal immigration system with border security is common sense 101.
I found this quote today interesting!
Your imagination is your preview of life’s coming attractions.-- Albert Einstein
It’s SO VERY TRUE!
Just wait until Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4) cuts lose!
And as a public service - to forum members…here are zombie dating sites. And they appear to be made, for a general audience.:
Well Steve, I am not sure why you’re saying this. Is anyone in this forum advocating open borders?
Well…taking in all who come, feeding and housing and health care for as long as it takes - without limit of the numbers? - seems pretty open to me.
Here’s my argument:
1.[quote=“Paidion, post:1808, topic:6062”]
people can be kept in temporary locations under supervision, and supplied with the necessities of life, until such time
[/quote]
Suppose we made that our policy, and published around the world. Does anyone here believe that a caravan of a few thousand would even be a blip on the radar, compared to the millions that would come, with the guarantee quoted above? Not all at once, but by what - by the tens of thousands? For free shelter, free food, free medicine? Yes they would come. Who could blame them? Who else would take them?
- And each one should be vetted, unless you are a person that thinks letting in people with horrific criminal records or terrorist ties - which has been proven, you can look it up - is worth the risk to American citizens. Or your citizens, if you choose to help with the burden.
- How long would vetting take? I mean, we’re not talking Swiss citizens or upright Australians here; we’re talking citizens of countries that don’t even keep records, or if they do, they are very spotty about it.
For each 10,000 in a ‘wave’ of immigrants, perhaps 1-2 years for vetting. Or more. And all the time, we are letting more waves in. - How big are the facilities for shelter and food etc going to have to be? Who is going to help us pay for it all?
- Will there EVER come a time - even for saintly Canada - to say 'Enough? Who is to say when?
- And we KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE, that if we set the ‘detainess’ loose in our country (‘catch and release’) with their promise to come back after vetting is done - they WlLL NOT.
So, I think the idea is somewhat crazy.
Really - who will tell us when you think the USA has done enough? 12-20 million illegals here now - how many more?
Australia - up for a few million, on the above conditions? Canada - a few million?
Would any of you take 5 million of our illegals right now, today?? Where is your compassion? Are you petitioning your government? If you can find Macron -talk to him and suggest it.
I’m sorry for the argumentative tone - but that’s what you are throwing this way, so it’s coming back to ya.
" A Serious Look at Canada’s Immigration Policies
Immigration Watch Canada is an organization of Canadians who believe that immigration has to serve the needs and interests of Canada’s own citizens. It cannot be turned into a social assistance / job-finding program for people from other countries. It should not be a method to suppress wages and provide employers with an unending supply of low-wage labour. It should never be a social engineering experiment that is conducted on Canada’s mainstream population in order to make it a minority. **
1 Like
Since the current topic - or subtopic - is immigration…I think EVERYONE should hear, this important talk:
HFZ,
It’s about numbers & I mean unsustainable numbers of penniless uneducated hungry desperate people. There are secondary issues like crime,drugs,human trafficking, etc but the main issue is numbers.
Yes Dave, the Dems mostly claim they are not for open borders but can we get anything coherent from them helping border security?
Yes, Steve. But folks MIGHT want to hear, from the good professor - and his zombie ideas! 
But, anyway. In statistics, you must establish a cause and effect relationship…between one or more variables…rather than just a correlation relationship…see if the statistics are reproducible…see what the sample population is…Etc. Etc. I do know a “little bit” about statistics! 
And I can always ask, the Deacon from my Eastern Orthodox Church. He does have a PhD in psychology. And works with statistics, at the University of Chicago. He knows a “little bit” about statistics also.
I don’t follow you re statistics in this illegal immigration issue. It’s primarily an issue of overwhelming numbers of poor,hungry,uneducated people who will break down our welfare subsidy network by sheer numbers. It seems black and white to me but if you want a cause it’s economics and the effect will be bankruptcy of America.
1 Like
Wow, I have not been called Gabey for… well, since I was living at home. Mom used to call me that, same with Grandma. Great times. Yes, you impinged upon a nerve, but I’ll recover… 
Or are you simply unwilling to accept the philanthropy of the Canadian Government and many Canadian people at the time that Vietnamese escapees needed help in order to survive?
No, I fully accept that Canada, along with many other countries have done some great things for all humans. It is interesting that you mentioned one example to bolster the idea that Canada is just superior with immigration. They might be, but I don’t think so and I’ll tell you why.
Canada has only one neighbor, and it isn’t poor. It really isn’t feasible to think that your country has dealt with a situation like this. Sure, people can fly in, boat in, etc… However, the logistics of such a thing, and expense, make it so that you don’t have to deal with large herds of people, unless you want too.
A boat takes money, lots of money, whether it be fuel, the boat itself, etc… So the idea that hundreds of ships could end up at one of your ports is really not probable. Flying is even more expensive, and of course, can’t carry the numbers that a boat can. So, what I am saying is that Canada doesn’t have have to deal with large amounts of people trying to sneak into their country. You just can’t compare what Canada has to deal with the United States. It just isn’t a fair comparison.
I’d also add, that if the idea of turning a caravan of people away makes your country mad, I would suggest you ask your government to take these people. Seriously - You can point the finger and say “America should take these people in!” but in the end, it isn’t your country, it is ours. So do the next best thing, either extend your assistance to these people, or become an America citizen and vote to change America and how it handles this situation. But, gloating about your superiority and then pointing the finger of shame at America is really just a chicken move. It is all show, with nothing to back it up.
What you have written about Canada “hiding behind an American curtain” and “not having any military” is absolute nonsense. Did Canada lack military when its soldiers participated in WWII against the axis nations? Why did the U.S.A. enter the war so late? Did they have no military at an earlier time?
I was using hyperbole. Of course Canada has a military. But it is a very small military. Very small. I doubt it even ranks as a top 20 in the entire world. There is nothing wrong with Canada having a small military, except that it is unique to them and their situation. Once again, they have how many neighbors? One! And who is that neighbor? Jolly Good USA. We got your back guys, so you really only need something tiny. This, again, is unique to your nation! It isn’t like anyone can do this. You have a super powerful ally/neighbor, whom even if you want to compete with, you couldn’t (militarily, speaking). So why would you? Hence, the small military.
This small military results in a massive amount of extra wealth that your nation can spend on great things like:National Health Care, Education, Social Services, etc… American could do this too, but it would have to reduce its spending. This is where I break ranks with others in this thread - I would be more than OK with the USA cutting National Defense a flat 50% and filtering a chunk of those funds into education and social services. We have, very clearly, the largest military in the world by a massive margin. We could cut it, and still be #1. So, we should.
I am not sure what WW2 has to do with this? That is great that Canada joined WW2. Yes, USA was a bit reluctant to get into the war, and only when it impacted us directly. That said, we came up and turned the tide of that war. But, I don’t understand what that has to do with their tiny military now? 1.1 million people from Canada assisted in WW2, roughly 10% of their population. 16 million people from USA served in the war, roughly 12% of our population. Before declaring war, we certainly were assisting Great Britain behind the scenes. Sure, we didn’t commit our people to the physical aspect (front lines) of the war as early as Canada did, but in the end, we lost about the same amount of casualties per capita.
1 Like
Whether they cause unemployment, get on welfare, etc…that’s ALL a matter of statistics and relationships between variables. So I say:
Show me the statistics!
For example. I can say XXX number of new immigrants arrived - in the US. Therefore unemployment, welfare, etc. - is going up. Well, it could be college students, who can’t find work. And they are getting on welfare, etc. Or veterans, coming out of the service. ETC. ETC. Or maybe the dead, are coming back to life…and getting on welfare, etc. - as zombies. Anything is possible! Let’s get some statistics, that show cause and effect…and relationships between variables…so we can ALL review them.
Excuse me. It’s time to feed, the new welfare recipients!
And here’s some “wisdom” for everyone - from today’s Sunil Bali Blog
Gabey, I appreciate your respectful response. I have to admit I didn’t expect it. I thought that in your response, you would lash out in anger more strongly than ever.
I also appreciate your explanations.
Don, are you mustering up calamity? Just asking. 
Why would my respectful statement to Gabe "muster up calamity?
Why do you find negativity in virtually every response of mine?
Sorry, and that is for real. Your statement to Gabe could be seen as a bait.
You can’t ignore our differences in both doctrine and politics. Though we both have to agree that mixing it up here on the forum is a stimulating exercise. On some things we will never agree.
Hope we can continue to be semi civil to each other.
With a little effort, we can jack that up to fully civil! 
The interpretation of stats will vary based on the interpreter meaning I watch mostly conservative media but if you watch leftist media you fill get different conclusions from the same stats to fit their agenda. You can claim conservatives make the stats fit their agenda too and my answer is that I’ve watched a lot of both, so t least in my mind i’m following the more honest of the two major political views.
BTW I don’t think I made any claims about unemployment which is at 3.7%.
Just curious but why must people agree? So if they disagree but they are trying in good faith to find the truth , that’s the most important result IMHO.
Yes. But employment and other variables are cyclic. And that doesn’t mean there’s a correlation, between what a current president is doing and the employment results, etc. I stay away from “left” and “right” wing stats. And look at either academic or independent stats.
Well IMHO the unemployment rate is tied to GDP which under Obama averaged under 2% and under Trump is averaging over 3%. Sometimes the GDP is cyclical but sometimes it’s related to tax policy or regulations or interest rates or labor supply or encouragement from the oval office.